I have debated many hindoos, mainly brahmins, in the past and all of them whine and cry about supposedly evil Muslim rule. What is surprising is that brahmins benefited the most from Muslim rule in getting cozy government positions from the Muslims who they regarded as fellow Caucasoids while the Australoid peasantry (who before were mainly Buddhist), the very substratum of Indian population, suffered like they did before under brahmins. Even so, it is brahmins who complain most about Muslim rule while ignoring the role of their ancestors in violently exterminating Buddhism in India. Due to this one of the biggest myths that brahmins and other caucasoid historians (hence honorary Aryan) is the "tolerant" nature of hindoo rulers. I have collected massive evidence of brahminical atrocities against the Australoid Buddhist which resulted in their extirpation from India. In fact the Hindus collaborated with the Muslims in killing Buddhists in India which has been revealed in a new well researched book called "Hardship and Downfall of Buddhism in India". The Hindu kshatriyas had treated the Buddhist Australoids so badly that they had infact welcomed Muslim rule, and mass converted to Islam to spite the oppressive brahmin buffoons. As noted earlier I mentioned how Hindus had killed Buddhism in India by genocide and evidence I have. I will get to that soon enough, but first let us look at the Jains who were massacred by brahmins all over south India. Look at Meenakshipuram where fanatical hindus have carvings celebrating the impalement of tens of thousands of Jaina monks. Truly sickening and tells us of the intolerant roots of "hindooism". I gave this example to show how it was not only the Buddhists that were killed by the Hindoos. More posts to follow.

@Khiladi420 -In the same vein of your article..... early mohemmedans had sodomised pigs and in the process had to face ugly reactions directed at their private parts, from the animals. Hence a fatwa was issues against the swines....

@Khiladi420 -In the same vein of your article..... early mohemmedans had sodomised pigs and in the process had to face ugly reactions directed at their private parts, from the animals. Hence a fatwa was issues against the swines....

I have debated many hindoos, mainly brahmins, in the past and all of them whine and cry about supposedly evil Muslim rule. What is surprising is that brahmins benefited the most from Muslim rule in getting cozy government positions from the Muslims who they regarded as fellow Caucasoids while the Australoid peasantry (who before were mainly Buddhist), the very substratum of Indian population, suffered like they did before under brahmins. Even so, it is brahmins who complain most about Muslim rule while ignoring the role of their ancestors in violently exterminating Buddhism in India. Due to this one of the biggest myths that brahmins and other caucasoid historians (hence honorary Aryan) is the "tolerant" nature of hindoo rulers. I have collected massive evidence of brahminical atrocities against the Australoid Buddhist which resulted in their extirpation from India. In fact the Hindus collaborated with the Muslims in killing Buddhists in India which has been revealed in a new well researched book called "Hardship and Downfall of Buddhism in India". The Hindu kshatriyas had treated the Buddhist Australoids so badly that they had infact welcomed Muslim rule, and mass converted to Islam to spite the oppressive brahmin buffoons. As noted earlier I mentioned how Hindus had killed Buddhism in India by genocide and evidence I have. I will get to that soon enough, but first let us look at the Jains who were massacred by brahmins all over south India. Look at Meenakshipuram where fanatical hindus have carvings celebrating the impalement of tens of thousands of Jaina monks. Truly sickening and tells us of the intolerant roots of "hindooism". I gave this example to show how it was not only the Buddhists that were killed by the Hindoos. More posts to follow.

Click to expand...

Brahmins have all the right to defend their way of life. Why Brahims should care about your frustrations and superfluous accuses.

We all know how your concept on protecting your prophet are clear, you guys know what is most important to protect ones religion and attack other's religion to make it perish. Your frustration against Hindus and Brahmins is quite understandable.

I have debated many hindoos, mainly brahmins, in the past and all of them whine and cry about supposedly evil Muslim rule. What is surprising is that brahmins benefited the most from Muslim rule in getting cozy government positions from the Muslims who they regarded as fellow Caucasoids while the Australoid peasantry (who before were mainly Buddhist), the very substratum of Indian population, suffered like they did before under brahmins. Even so, it is brahmins who complain most about Muslim rule while ignoring the role of their ancestors in violently exterminating Buddhism in India. Due to this one of the biggest myths that brahmins and other caucasoid historians (hence honorary Aryan) is the "tolerant" nature of hindoo rulers. I have collected massive evidence of brahminical atrocities against the Australoid Buddhist which resulted in their extirpation from India. In fact the Hindus collaborated with the Muslims in killing Buddhists in India which has been revealed in a new well researched book called "Hardship and Downfall of Buddhism in India". The Hindu kshatriyas had treated the Buddhist Australoids so badly that they had infact welcomed Muslim rule, and mass converted to Islam to spite the oppressive brahmin buffoons. As noted earlier I mentioned how Hindus had killed Buddhism in India by genocide and evidence I have. I will get to that soon enough, but first let us look at the Jains who were massacred by brahmins all over south India. Look at Meenakshipuram where fanatical hindus have carvings celebrating the impalement of tens of thousands of Jaina monks. Truly sickening and tells us of the intolerant roots of "hindooism". I gave this example to show how it was not only the Buddhists that were killed by the Hindoos. More posts to follow.

Click to expand...

Another fustrated Pakistani Muslim pretending to be arab who got a traumatic jolt of reality from his day dream of being a Martial Race.

I have debated many hindoos, mainly brahmins, in the past and all of them whine and cry about supposedly evil Muslim rule. What is surprising is that brahmins benefited the most from Muslim rule in getting cozy government positions from the Muslims who they regarded as fellow Caucasoids while the Australoid peasantry (who before were mainly Buddhist), the very substratum of Indian population, suffered like they did before under brahmins. Even so, it is brahmins who complain most about Muslim rule while ignoring the role of their ancestors in violently exterminating Buddhism in India. Due to this one of the biggest myths that brahmins and other caucasoid historians (hence honorary Aryan) is the "tolerant" nature of hindoo rulers. I have collected massive evidence of brahminical atrocities against the Australoid Buddhist which resulted in their extirpation from India. In fact the Hindus collaborated with the Muslims in killing Buddhists in India which has been revealed in a new well researched book called "Hardship and Downfall of Buddhism in India". The Hindu kshatriyas had treated the Buddhist Australoids so badly that they had infact welcomed Muslim rule, and mass converted to Islam to spite the oppressive brahmin buffoons. As noted earlier I mentioned how Hindus had killed Buddhism in India by genocide and evidence I have. I will get to that soon enough, but first let us look at the Jains who were massacred by brahmins all over south India. Look at Meenakshipuram where fanatical hindus have carvings celebrating the impalement of tens of thousands of Jaina monks. Truly sickening and tells us of the intolerant roots of "hindooism". I gave this example to show how it was not only the Buddhists that were killed by the Hindoos. More posts to follow.

Basically you have swallowed up and believed racist western definitions of "caucasoid" and "negroid" and "australoid".

The British first found sanskrit in India and thought that fair complexioned brahmins on the north west of India were their brethren. They felt these fair people victoriously defeated the idiotic blacks of the south and east. Only much later they saw dark complexioned bengali brahmins and did not like to call themselves brothers of black people. So they said that the caucasoid brahmins had become dirty by intermixing with inferior "dravidian" races. The British thought the dark australoid races were inferior.

You have read all this bullshit and you have made up your own story and I will tear down any stupid statement that you make. rip you an new one and hand you the old one to hold in your right paw.

Here is a link to an image of a 1910 book on India where it is said that the driving of Buddhists by the Aryans was caused by the Aryans first mixing with the dark skinned (Australoid) races. "These gross corruptions" of the caucasoids were caused by their mixing with the black skinned "aboriginals". This is the racist bullshit that the British started and you have read that and are vomiting it back at us in some twisted form as though you are saying something original

Aldous Huxley (sometime in the early 20th century) wrote some more racist bullshit talking about head shapes and types of hair. The definition of Australoid is also all about head shape and curly hair.

â€œThere was and is an Aryan raceâ€“that is to say, the characteristic modes of speech, termed Aryan, were developed among the blond long-heads alone however much some of them may have been modified by the importation of non-Aryan elements. As to the "home" of the Aryan race, it was in Europe, and lay chiefly east of the central highlands and west of the Ural.â€ and as for dark skinned people, Huxley said: I doubt if any one is prepared to say that he believes that the influence of external conditions, alone, accounts for the wide physical differences between Englishmen and Bengalese.â€

Click to expand...

Start by defining australoid or caucasoid if you think you are not bluffing. Or else go post on PDF and have a whine there.

That you just collate all Muslim rulers into a monolith makes me not take any of your arguments seriously. My guess is that you aren't trying to make any coherent arguments, and if you're actually "trying" then.... I guess... I have very little to say.

That you just collate all Muslim rulers into a monolith makes me not take any of your arguments seriously. My guess is that you aren't trying to make any coherent arguments, and if you're actually "trying" then.... I guess... I have very little to say.

Click to expand...

For the purposes of this thread, all Muslim rulers are identical as they all considered all Buddhists and Hindus as kafirs, even though some Muslim rulers benefited fellow caucasoids like the Rajpoots and brahmins.